Kerre Woodham: Instead of nay-saying, try giving

Television is a great way to advertise but the saturation effect of World Vision's heartfelt pleas for child sponsors is turning a lot of viewers off.

I had quite a few callers last week on the radio asking how much the advertising was costing World Vision and suggesting that the money spent on expensive TV ads would be better spent on medicine for the sick children featured.

To set the record straight, many of the ads appear gratis thanks to the generosity of the television channels, and the World Vision website also details where the money donated is allocated. As a general rule, it appears most charities spend about 20 per cent of the money they collect on fundraising and admin.

A number of callers said they had seen for themselves where their money was going - they've visited Africa and seen the child and the village improvements for themselves. Others remained deeply cynical and suggested that while Africa remained ruled by incompetent and/or corrupt leaders, the only reason to send money was to make flabby liberals feel good.

I don't watch much TV, unless it's sport, so the ads don't bug me, but whether you find them irritating or heart-rending, surely helping a world-renowned charity in its work is better than smugly pointing to the failings of African governments and deriding generous individuals for their naivety.